Re: Spec changes for ISSUE-180 change proposal

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012, Jacob Rossi wrote:
> 
> We have reviewed our change proposal for ISSUE-180 [1] since the call 
> this morning. The details section describes in detail the changes that 
> we believe need to be made to the specification. The proposed changes 
> point to the sections of the specification and provide suggested text to 
> be included. We do not expect anybody to reverse engineer our 
> implementation. If any working group member believes that there is 
> implementation information missing from the change proposal, we'd be 
> happy to discuss that and clarify what we have built.

The only reason I haven't yet applied this patch is that I need to rewrite 
the entire sandbox stuff anyway to refactor it for CSP, and I don't want 
to do the work twice.

Once I do apply it, I will naturally (as with any patch) try to make sure 
it matches existing implementations. Unfortunately I can't test IE10 since 
I don't have a way to run it.

Since implementations have already gone ahead and implemented this feature 
without the spec being updated for it, despite the feature really not 
being that important (why are we even encouraging bad UI like popups at 
all, let alone in a sandboxed environment?), it really doesn't seem urgent 
for the feature to be specced, which is why I have prioritised other 
matters above this one.

HTH,
-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 16:18:57 UTC